wtetzner

38 ms·

631.
by wtetzner 4y ago
If the copilot users then distribute the source they got from it, they are at that point violating copyright. E.g., if I take that Disney movie, incorporate it into my own movie, and distribute it, then I'm also violating copyright.
632.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I’m not really sure what you’re arguing. You seem to be saying that since we can’t prove that one approach is better than the other, we should just assume they’re all equal. We do have proofs that certain classes of bugs are impossible
633.
by wtetzner 4y ago
> can they prove it? And I would guess that they cannot. Of course not, to do that you’d need a way to detect all bugs in a program. If we had an effective way to that, we’d be using to remove all of the bugs from our programs instead of
634.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I doubt you can run your Python or JavaScript test suit faster than the OCaml compiler could both typecheck and compile your code.
635.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Really, like everything, there’s nuance. E.g. not all type systems are equal, not all programmers are equally effective at taking advantage of the type system, etc.
636.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I suspect that if you start taking cold showers, you’ll also star taking shorter showers.
637.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I wonder if it would be worth finding out about the donor's diet, and trying to replicate it after the transplant in an effort to maintain the gut flora.
638.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Even assembly languages are abstractions.
639.
by wtetzner 4y ago
No, and I don't think anyone has argued that. The argument is that the company has both good and bad aspects to it.
640.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Yeah, I think choosing git is fine, and choosing to have a monorepo is fine, but you probably don't want to do both. Or, at the very least, once your git monorepo reaches a certain size, you should either split it up, or switch to some
641.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I think the biggest problem here is that git (out of the box) is not well suited to a monorepo. But in terms of the reasons in "The case against monorepos": > Reason #1. Monorepos go against single-team ownership principles I t
642.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Yeah, the thing that seems to be missed here is that designing simple things is hard . Things are complicated because the first version of pretty much everything ends up being more complicated than it needs to, and most engineers don'
643.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Simple more or less means "decoupled", not necessarily convenient.
644.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I'm certainly not claiming you should never design anything up front. And I'm also not saying you should never design abstractions. As with everything, the devil is in the details. What I am trying to get at is that I've seen
645.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I think you and the parent are talking about two different things. Building products that are looking to the future is valuable, if risky. But I believe the parent comment was talking about software abstractions. i.e., don't build abst
646.
by wtetzner 4y ago
> There is not many people who have the guts to build a simple straightforward step for step script I don't think it's that easy. Building simple software is very hard, and often takes several iterations to ensure you even unde
647.
by wtetzner 4y ago
You might be right, but I don’t think that particular assumption being wrong necessarily matters.
648.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Sure, but that doesn't help if your project is in Rust.
649.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Sure, but now your program needs to use this library everywhere, or implement Monad transformers etc. to interoperate with existing code.
650.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Clojure uses a custom classloader to compile and load bytecode at runtime.
651.
by wtetzner 4y ago
> You need decades just to replicate this. Now you need to move 100+ of such material chains. Better get started right away then. "The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today."
652.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Where did the 8GB number come from? The discussion was about 16GB.
653.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I believe Clojure is always compiled.
654.
by wtetzner 4y ago
I don’t believe Haskell has support for algebraic effects. OCaml is getting them though.
655.
by wtetzner 4y ago
There are tons of those in every language. You just see a lot them in Rust because people are excited to submit Rust projects to HN.
656.
by wtetzner 4y ago
> The languages that truly let you do anything you want flexibly invariably lead to incomprehensible ivory towers. It is why managers hate Lisp, it's why Perl is joked as write-once read-never. I've yet to see that happen in a
657.
by wtetzner 4y ago
How does Zig represent Option<Option<i32>>? Would it be something like this? ??i32
658.
by wtetzner 4y ago
If people didn't like it, I don't think Legos would be so popular.
659.
by wtetzner 4y ago
Standardized parts sound a lot like libraries implementing common interfaces.
660.
by wtetzner 4y ago
> or you end up writing one ad hoc using your libraries. I hear this argument a lot, but I don't think it really ends up working that way. You build an application with some abstractions, not a framework. The difference is that the

More ›